Vorce v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vorce v. State

557 So. 2d 201, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1092, 1990 WL 15914

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 21, 1990

DocketNo. 89-01686

StatusPublished

This text of 557 So. 2d 201 (Vorce v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vorce v. State, 557 So. 2d 201, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1092, 1990 WL 15914 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.

The defendant, Bruce Vorce, challenges that portion of his sentence for grand theft which requires him to make restitution. We find no merit in his arguments but write to make one comment.

The defendant argues that he lacks the financial resources to make the ordered restitution within the period of his probation. This contention, while potentially true, is premature. The court did not make any order regarding the amount or time schedule of restitution payments, but merely directed the probation officer to get more details on the defendant’s income and expenses and suggest to the court a payment schedule. When the trial court specifies a payment schedule, the defendant is entitled to notice and a hearing under section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1987). If the defendant is aggrieved by the resulting order, he could then appeal.

Affirmed.

LEHAN and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.

The defendant, Bruce Vorce, challenges that portion of his sentence for grand theft which requires him to make restitution. We find no merit in his arguments but write to make one comment.

The defendant argues that he lacks the financial resources to make the ordered restitution within the period of his probation. This contention, while potentially true, is premature. The court did not make any order regarding the amount or time schedule of restitution payments, but merely directed the probation officer to get more details on the defendant’s income and expenses and suggest to the court a payment schedule. When the trial court specifies a payment schedule, the defendant is entitled to notice and a hearing under section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1987). If the defendant is aggrieved by the resulting order, he could then appeal.

Affirmed.

LEHAN and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 So. 2d 201, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1092, 1990 WL 15914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vorce-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.